September 23, 2012

CNN broke a pledge to the late ambassador's family that it wouldn't report on the diary, said State Department spokesman Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton...

The public has a right to know what CNN learned from "multiple sources" about fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack, the channel said, "which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn't do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel."...

"Whose first instinct is to remove from a crime scene the diary of a man killed along with three other Americans serving our country, read it, transcribe it, email it around your newsroom for others to read" and then call the family?" Reines asked.

I'm glad CNN did this. The State Department — it's obvious, isn't it? — wanted to suppress this information, and CNN got it out. This is a major international event, and I don't accept privatizing it. Yes, there is a grieving family, but the State Department, which calls CNN "disgusting," is hiding behind that family. That's disgusting.

In its online story, CNN said it found the journal on the "floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded."

Why wasn't the crime scene secured? If CNN hadn't taken the journal, where would it be now? Having taken it, they shouldn't read it? Having read it, they shouldn't use it?

Asked to comment on CNN's report that Stevens was concerned about a "hit list," Reines referred to a news conference last Thursday at which Clinton was asked about it.

"I have absolutely no information or reason to believe that there's any basis for that," Clinton had said.

Why didn't Clinton know anything? Or was she lying? I'm sick of this suppression. Our ambassador was assassinated, the State Department has been lying or dissembling, and we're asked to be distracted by the family's wishes... as asserted by the State Department in cover-your-ass mode... or worse.

ADDED: Did CNN "pledge" to the family that it wouldn't use the information from the journal in its reporting? I'm trying to find the answer to that question (as I simply don't trust the State Department's choice of words). Here's what the WSJ has:

CNN said on its website that it notified the Stevens family "within hours" that it had the journal. The Stevens family then reached out to the State Department, which arranged a telephone conference call between members of the family and CNN. In that call, the family asked the news organization to return the journal and to not publish or broadcast any of its contents, according to a Stevens family member and State Department officials.

Family members and State Department officials said CNN agreed during the Sept. 14 conference call to hold off on using the diary until the family had a chance to review its contents.

Family members and State Department officials said CNN agreed... What did CNN "agree" to? This isn't in quotes, so it's hard to judge what was agreed to. CNN didn't quote the journal or say it had it. They did use the material to build a report that had more than one source. It seems as though the State Department leaned on CNN, and I don't know what the family's concern was — perhaps more personal things in the journal. Or was the family dutifully backing the State Department — which didn't want to reveal the security lapses?

"Some of that information was found in a personal journal of Ambassador Stevens in his handwriting," Mr. Cooper told viewers [on his Friday show]. "We came upon the journal through our reporting and notified the family. At their request, we returned that journal to them. We reported what we found newsworthy in the ambassador's writings."

That implies that they did not report other things that they did not find newsworthy.

CNN added in a statement on its website, "For CNN, the ambassador's writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources."

If the argument is that CNN broke an agreement, I want precision and I don't see it. I repeat that I'm glad CNN got this information to us and didn't supinely pass along the State Department's talking points (which were wrong).

"Whose first instinct is to remove from a crime scene the diary of a man killed along with three other Americans serving our country, read it, transcribe it, email it around your newsroom for others to read" and then call the family?" Reines asked."

Calling it a crime scene tells you all you need to know about how delusional the administration is. And they are letting more scum out from Guantanamo. God help us.

The lack of security there was wildly unreported. They had reporters on NPR the day after the attack, talking about how the area was still unguarded and Libyans were wandering in, taking photos and video of the damage. That CNN could walk in days later, and find evidence, is no surprise.

CNN apparently found this document four days after the assassinations. Four days! Just lying around. How's that investigation going, Mr. President? Secretary Clinton?

It's instructive that Waco has come into today's discussion. It's hard to imagine a more blatant cover up of high level responsibility for a disaster than Waco. President Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Vince Foster and other high level Clinton people were directly and intimately involved in a plan that expressly targeted children with tear gas in order to "pressure" their parents to leave the compound. The President and Janet Reno met in the oval office to discuss the plans in advance. Hilary pressured Vince Foster to get the situation resolved, because the ongoing publicity was damaging to the administration.

The plan went disastrously amiss, as could have been predicted. It was a over agressive high risk response from the start.

I remember watching in horror as that building burned on live TV and no one was coming out.

It was a terrible screw up. Through blatant lying, abetted by political allies and the press, the Clintons' reputations were hardly touched by the event.

Clinton 'didn't know about it' because her glorious State Department apparently made no effort to examine the scene for useful evidence, and the diary sat around for days in the wreckage.

CNN (usually cringeworthy in its left-biased reporting) did something right this time. And Hillary & co. are using the SAME EXCUSE as they are about the evil film trailer: 'sensitive others' might be offended if the public got knowlege of it.

It's time for unknown 'sensitive others' to cease their role as the reason our government hides or suppresses pertinent information - since there's no end to their imagined existence. And it's time for Hillary to go.

Disgusting hypocrisy once again. No concern for the family's wishes, I want what I want and I want it now! Everyone wants the truth of how and why ths happened, but to justify ignoring the family's wishes in order to prove the President and his administration are lying, is immoral.

Is there anything this administration can't fuck up?I don't think so.The job of leading is obviously too much for our current resident.He's clearly over his head. I think I'll vote to replace him.He'll be much happier in the private sector.

but the State Department, which calls CNN "disgusting," is hiding behind that family

Watch it, Hillary. CNN has been covering your political booty for decades, to the detriment of an informed electorate. Perhaps CNN might have a lightbulb moment after her dissing, and start ending the suppression of Democrat- and Clinton-damaging news.

Inga: CNN independently verified the things it found in the journal from other sources. That's fair journalistic games. Remember: Journalism isn't about people's feelings; it is supposed to make the powerful uncomfortable and the weak comfortable. No one was weaker than the dead ambassador because the powerful neglected him.

He had concerns and concerns that his safety wasn't being taken seriously. Now, his journal, will be used to hang those who neglected his wishes and safety. That's poetic justice.

CNN: You are finished. YOU will never have the opportunity to talk to Sec. Hillary on her last day of the first term. She will be at the UN in the 2nd term. You will not have any interviews. CNN: You lose. YOu should just do what we want. Why did you not talk to us like NYT and NPR do? Why? Do you hate ratings?

"Whose first instinct is to remove from a crime scene the diary of a man killed along with three other Americans serving our country, read it, transcribe it, email it around your newsroom for others to read" and then call the family?"

"floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.""wounded" not died, meaning he didn't die there, he was paraded thru the street. "Raped?" as some reports said. The Wisconsin old woman wants another four years of such incompetence to protect her "reproductive rights"?

That's because they had theories like "Bush remote controlled the planes into the towers!" and "That was a missile, not a plane!" and "Fire can't melt steel!"

While those were some of the more outlandish theories out there, it is also true that any questioning at all of the Official 9/11 Story was (is?) met with personal attacks and namecalling from Bush/Cheney-supporters.

Clearly, please, clearly, tell me you see the difference between that wackiness and Libya

Yup, I can clearly see that Bush is no longer in office and Obama is. Hence the difference in the reactions...

Disgusting hypocrisy once again. No concern for the family's wishes, I want what I want and I want it now! Everyone wants the truth of how and why ths happened, but to justify ignoring the family's wishes in order to prove the President and his administration are lying, is immoral.

What about a Congressional injury, you can't wait that long?

Ooops! Sockpuppetry malfunction in Aisle 4.

And that's inquiry.

The injury occurred when such a complete incompetent was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State.

I am willing to attribute part of the "misinformation" to fog of war difficulties. That's inevitable. What is not inevitable is the repeated, orchestrated campaign to tell a particular misleading story. Why is Ambassador Rice involved in this at all, for example? It's not part of her responsibility. She's just a pretty face who is willing to hit the talk show loop to advance the narrative.

What is not inevitable is this false outrage against normal reporting. And by the way, who at CNN "promised" that they would not report based on the diary? Who overruled that promise? Or was there a promise at all? Perhaps CNN will tell us. Perhaps.

purplepenquin said...I still remember how anyone who dared to question the Official Story about what happened on 9/11 was called names for wondering if the BushAdmin might have been covering up something.

I think that the anniversary of 9/11 had a lot to do with people's skepticism. It did mine. I was flying that day (9/11/12) with my family. I heard about the Libya attack after getting off the plane. My first thought was that it was connected to 9/11/01. People had no such preconceived notions the first time around.

You are attacking people's intuition and calling them truthers. This in itself is not wrong but it is futile. The truth is that a majority of people think a certain way about 9/11/12 while the Administration is only now coming around. When will you come around to admitting what likely happened? What will it take, PurplePenquin?

Purple: Well, it helps that Bush was open and transparent, helped with the investigation and did not try and stomp on First Amendment rights. The fact that Obama had the audacity to tell journalists what not to talk about is different.

Look, the only way people could attack Bush was to try and lie and say things like: "Oh, he let it happen so he could finish his dad's war." The other kinds of criticism "We should have done more" are usually met with yes, but we didn't at the time. Because Bush was a leader and managed the disaster well.

Muliple terrorist attacks on US soil (our foreign embassies) on Obama's watch. Nothing but lies about it since the minutes the attacks occured. Rumors that the US "hired" the Libyan Islamic Brotherhood to provide security for our embassy there. Was it just money? Did they get the pick of al-Gaddafi's "toys"--advanced weapons that could be moving against Israeli and US interests now. The Media keeps on reporting that Romney had a bad week. Should Romney's statement be re-evaluated based on the new information and this Administration's lies?

David: My understanding is that CNN said they would not directly report from the journal, but they did go out and verify things they read there. Then it gets all tangly and confusing. But, in essence, they received privileged information, verified it, reported it.

But Crack, isn't it unethical of them to hold back information from the public? They have a duty there too. Once they made that promise, whatever it was, they now had two conflicting duties--to the family and the public.

David: They had to verify he really was on a hit list, not that he just thought about it. Also, they wanted to verify he had voiced his concerns over his safety. If he kept them to himself, then it wouldn't be so damning. So, they needed to prove that what he said in there was true (and not just thoughts he had but did not follow up on.)

And lest anyone accuse me of merely wanting to protect Obama, this is the third time I've said this in the past three days, IF Obama and Clinton are guilty of a coverup and inadequate security, ignoring warnings, etc. then they deserve the fallout.

Purple: But there's a difference. We got the truth on 9/11; since the attack in Libya, the government has stonewalled, lied and intimidated U.S. citizens to promote a version of events that is not true.

These are verifiable facts. The government knew that there was no riot in Libya when they exercised political muscle to silence a movie maker who they claimed caused a riot they knew did not exist.

That's the problem: Bush was honest, straight forward and worked with people to get answers. Obama literally withheld information from Republicans that he then gave to newspapers on the record.

"IF Obama and Clinton are guilty of a coverup and inadequate security, ignoring warnings, etc. then they deserve the fallout."

-- It is clear they're covering up Inga. They knew there was no riot in Libya while they dragged the movie maker around and said that there was a riot over his movie. They said a thing they knew was not true to cover up the fact they screwed up.

The question is whether the cover up is merely stupid and unethical, or actually illegal.

State is about to use the family in a bigger way to dampen this down. You can count on it. The family has huge power here to hurt the administration, but likely they will not. It's not part of their political predilection, and my guess is that they will correctly assume that the Ambassador, who was a dutiful man, would not have wanted them to damage the administration. Not because of his politics, but because of his duty as a State Department officer.

garage mahal accuses CNN of being determined to smear Obama. PurpleProsePenquin thinks that accusing Bush of plotting the 9/11/01 attacks is exactly like noticing that the government has repeatedly dissembled and covered up important facts ever since the 9/11/12 attack.

Seriously, I don't expect any of the partisans (on either side) to grok, let alone begin to understand, what I'm pointing out...but those of us who don't have PoliticalPartyBlinders on can easily see the similarities of what is occurring now and what happened then.

But Crack, isn't it unethical of them to hold back information from the public? They have a duty there too. Once they made that promise, whatever it was, they now had two conflicting duties--to the family and the public.

In other words, ethically they fucked themselves

You've got several different issues here:

1) They gave their word to the family of a murdered public servant - that should be golden.

2) After reading the diary, CNN should've been able to confirm any important information - from other sources - and then reported it from that angle, thus avoiding (at least the appearance of) violating their word to the family.

You don't need to pay the Penguin this month, given that he/she/it cost Obama so many votes. In fact, everyone on your payroll needs a lesson. And you can use the extra funds now that you have to start funding all those Dem campaigns that we were told were "sure bets."

Yes Chip, you lying about what I said (I never claimed that "accusing Bush of plotting the 9/11/01 attacks is exactly like" this situation) reeks of desperation.

Just like how Pogo trying to claim that nobody was derided for questioning the Bush/Cheney story about 9/11/01, and Darrell constantly spreading the lie that I'm being paid by the Democratic Party to post on this blog also reeks of desperation.

Ya'll can't discuss what was actually said/happened, so you start making crap up instead.

The fact that a few of ya constantly label me as an "Obot" speaks volumes: Your deep-rooted bigotry makes ya'll think that anyone who has a different opinion MUST be a strong supporter of Obama, and that bigotry is clouding ya'lls vision.

Allie, if your surname starts with an "F," it is too dangerous to use even your real first name on the web. Even if it doesn't, just pluuging what I "know" about you into Google gave a lot of choices in less than fifteen seconds.

In which the penguin distracts from the issue at hand in favor of some other bullshit, because Dear Leader has really really screwed the pooch, and actual people actually died, for realz. Whoops; time to talk about Bush again.

Crack,I think this is nonsense. CNN ay well have promised the family that they would not use any personal information from the diary, but no news organization would ever promise not to use newsworthy information from it. There is only this State Dept. person's word for the wording of this promise, and I trust that about as far as I trust DoJ on Fast & Furious and related matters.

Mr. Crack is absolutely correct in the ethical breach a desperate CNN is guilty of, provided the terms of the promise are as we understand them to be.

But the issue seems to be how or why WASN'T American Territory SECURED once this horrific disaster took place? A reporter finding the Diary days later in a compound that is presumably largely intact makes one wonder what else is STILL THERE, unsecured. Files both analog AND digital, personal effects (such as the subject document) and possibly arms re-acquired or cached in case they were needed.

The compound or building should have been secured, scrubbed clean of any material that was important, then vacated prior to either an air or drone strike leveling it to a pile of sand so as its immediate value to the locals and/or enemy was moot.

I must be mistaken, I thought the President and Sec. of State were supposed to protect, defend and promote America's interest. I'm not totally unsophisticated, but aren't they occasionally required to lie to foreign governments for that end, not the American people.

The Obama / Clinton Middle-east foreign policy just had the bottom drop out, is there anything these people touch that doesn't turn to shit? Not to worry, Barry and Hillary have already announced that they are pivoting their policy attention to Asia in Barry's second term, what could possible go wrong?

I have mixed feelings about what CNN did, but if they found the diary of, say, Gadhaffi, you can bet they'd report on it and we would applaud. So should it be so different because the writer was American and he was writing w/r/t his American embassy assignment?

PenguinYou don't remember conservatives fearlessly digging for the truth in a nonpartisan way after 9/11? I remember conservativesreally holding Bush's feet to the fire over that memo "bin laden determined to strike the U.S.

I'm sure everyone has now noticed that the Democrat's idea of treating incidents like these and the original 9/11 as a police matter is INSANE. You can not send civilian police to secure such a crime scene. Forget forensics. You don't have the ability to move around in hostile unsecured area to question suspects and make arrests. Civilian personnel are in constant danger without a huge military security escort. Would the Taliban have co-operated in Afghanistan? Would you trust them?How about in Libya or Egypt in the current climate?

It was stupid when Hillary and Al Gore were pushing it in 2001 and it is stupid today. Like most Democrat ideas.

What issues were raised about 9/11 that are legitimate issues which the government lied about?

Based on what you've said so far, I think that you personally won't find any of the issues that were raised against Bush/Cheney to be "legitimate". And not just you; supporters on either side have a hard time beleiving some things about their guy.

For instance: In both situations there are folks accusing the President of knowing about the attacks beforehand but allowing it to happen anyways. But the hardcore right would claim it is utterly ridiculous to say that about the '01 attacks, while the hardcore left would claim anyone who says that about Obama needs a tin-foil hat.

I ain't gonna try to re-hash the whole 9/11/01 attacks and those who question the Official Story, but rather I'm just noticing...as someone who isn't a strong supporter of either political party....how much this seems a lot like that, but with the roles switched.

~~~~

I admit it.

Yes, much like Sally's dad you are quick to label someone as a "liberal" simply because they disagree with ya on something.

And then your future responses are based on your preconceived notions about liberals and democrats rather than what is actually being said by the actual person.

If that ain't "bigotry", then what it is?

I'm bigoted against people making up their own facts

If you were truly interested in having a good faith discussion, then you would have provided actual example(s) with your accusation.

It's not what happened so much as Obama and Clintons reactions to it. It really exposed them as fundamentally dishonest people. They think telling lies with a political calculous designed to deflect blame and rejection of responsibility is the right thing to do. It is being done solely to win the election.

"Just like how Pogo trying to claim that nobody was derided for questioning the Bush/Cheney story about 9/11/01, and Darrell constantly spreading the lie that I'm being paid by the Democratic Party to post on this blog also reeks of desperation."

Stevens' family didn't tell CNN anything except "Don't report on the document you have." They didn't know the contents of the journal.

I've known people involved in criminal acts and terrible accidents. In every case, there was some information they really felt should not be discussed by the press because it was private. It is not in the American tradition to let the families decide such things. Their interests are not in the public interest.

The lack of security there was wildly unreported. They had reporters on NPR the day after the attack, talking about how the area was still unguarded and Libyans were wandering in, taking photos and video of the scene.

=============That was while The Heroes of Law Enforcement at the FBI were still not in country "investigating the crime scene" because they thought it was too dangerous.

Pols with something to hide from the public ABSOLUTELY LOVE to say "I can't comment on the matter because it is now a matter for the courts and law enforcement to handle...and hopefully in a couple years the public will know the details..".

As for the family, they should be thanking God a CNN stringer found it 4 days later in the unsecured 'crime scene' and it wasn't being read including the lurid personal life parts as pages from a war trophy taken by the Ambassador's slayers.

You know, the usual thing where 3 masked Muslims sit at a table with their black flag, green background, laid down AK-47s and read stuff to the video cam. "We have here the captured diary of the infidel American rogue leader Stevens. And on page 118 - which will be sent in PDF format to al-Jazeera to verify it is the infidel's own hand that wrote it...There are disgusting, sinfully depraved and unnatural descriptions of homosexual sex with a young Jew assigned to the embassy. Who may have been both Stevens and Hillary's handler on behalf of Israel"

Does the "sacred family wishes being paramount" account for the idea that if it was not in CNN hands it would have ended up as a trophy in Libyan hands??

9/11 truthers were called idiots because they were, well, idiots. The entire truther narrative rested on physical and social impossibilities, such as entire buildings having been mined without public knowledge and fire not being able to melt steel. Posit the immense number of people it would have taken to pull off that conspiracy, and not a single one could be found to tell the "truth". In short, Penguin, that dog won't hunt.

Darrell said...I'm sure everyone has now noticed that the Democrat's idea of treating incidents like these and the original 9/11 as a police matter is INSANE. You can not send civilian police to secure such a crime scene.

There is less excuse for it now with Democrats because we have had 12 years to discard stupid notions fed us by the S Africans, Israelis that ideological conflict is terrorism and terrorism is a civilian crime for civilian lawyers and civilian courts to deal with the same as bank theft and child support payments are..

But at the time of 9/11, remember that Bush's instinct and Cheney's instinct that we were at war was powerfully pushed back against by Republicans who were lawyers and most notably by Rudy Giuliani who went into full civilian prosecutor mode:

1. The whole area was secured as a crime scene, with only hero cops and people being watched by hero cops allowed in - lest "vital evidence needed for criminal prosecution be lost".

2. All the debris was sorted at Rudy's command only by Hero cops sucking up amazingly expensive OT...since all debris was evidence and a mere civilian touching the effects of a Fallen Hero Firefighter or Cop might defile it.

3. Immediately the lawyers talked about finding the culprits and bringing them into NYC so that the lawyers could have their Trial of the Century.

4. The Cult of the 1st Responders was created. The answer to enemy attack being first and foremost having More Heroes - Cops, Firefighters, and EMTs to deal with it and they all needed LOTS more money and pay and people!! The military was considered sort of a backup to the heroism of the 1st responders and Heores of Law Enforcement at airports, bridges, and tunnels that would Keep US All Safe.

5. What Rudy and certain Republicans created as the meme was of course expanded by the Democrats.

"I guess they were just supposed hand it over to the nice man from the State Department and not ask any questions, is that right, Inga? Does that sound like journalism to you?

9/23/12 10:05 AM

Inga seems to think foreign policy is not about hurting people's feelings. Screw the First Amendment if it hurts Muslim feelings. Finding out the truth about a terrorist attack on a US embassy is not as important as the feelings of Stevens' family.

Inga is all about the feeeeelings....nothing more than feeeeelings - logic, truth and sense don't factor into her reckonings.

CNN ay well have promised the family that they would not use any personal information from the diary, but no news organization would ever promise not to use newsworthy information from it.

Neither you, nor I, nor Ann was there, so we don't have any idea what was promised, except for what we have to go on. CNN hasn't said they DIDN'T make the promise - with or without caveats - so, as it stands, they did wrong.

There is only this State Dept. person's word for the wording of this promise, and I trust that about as far as I trust DoJ on Fast & Furious and related matters.

Again, what you, or I, or Ann, thinks, or who or what we trust, is irrelevant. Listen to Ann, below, in full-on conjecture mode:

I'm glad CNN did this. The State Department — it's obvious, isn't it? — wanted to suppress this information, and CNN got it out. This is a major international event, and I don't accept privatizing it. Yes, there is a grieving family, but the State Department, which calls CNN "disgusting," is hiding behind that family. That's disgusting.

…I'm sick of this suppression. Our ambassador was assassinated, the State Department has been lying or dissembling, and we're asked to be distracted by the family's wishes... as asserted by the State Department in cover-your-ass mode... or worse

Here, Ann knows nothing, as her "it's obvious, isn't it?" and "or worse" comments indicate. She presents no confirming evidence, holds no more information than we do, but feels her statement, "I don't accept," means she can damn anything else - including the murdered man's family's wishes - when she's supposedly fighting for that man. Talk about twisting reality! Her charge of "suppression" is no more valid than someone standing outside of Area 51.

It's weird on Althouse nowadays. I can give you concrete evidence of Romney's lying, that his "charity" really went to his cult - anything - and many here will wave it away, or attack me, as though there's no solid case being built that I am seeing the world as it is and others are slipping into political delusion. But let Ann start foaming at the mouth, and making wild accusations - because she's (feminist alert:) dissatisfied - and that's enough for some to go into full conspiracy theory mode against our government in an international incident.

What are you fighting for again? Because it's certainly not America.

I told you:

This election and 2008's are exactly alike, except the roles of Left and Right have switched.

This time, it is the Right who are desperate, and they will let nothing dissuade them from acting out, in the most unethical or insane ways possible, just as the Left did against Bush. Get it through your heads, Kids:

Whether you win the election or not, wrong is still wrong, and ultimately you will lose.

I'd have thought, after the last four years, you would've gotten that by now,...

While those were some of the more outlandish theories out there, it is also true that any questioning at all of the Official 9/11 Story was (is?) met with personal attacks and namecalling from Bush/Cheney-supporters.

It's true- supporters will make excuses for "their" guy, and lash out at people who dare question him. I'm not surprised Obama supporters try to cover for him. That's the nature of partisan politics.

I am disturbed when the media does it. We have a media that is full of Obama supporters. We had no media bias for Bush after the first 9/11. The media at the time presented all the facts they could find re: 9/11. If they could've found proof that Bush was "in on it", as the truthers believed, the media would've printed it.

People today are aware of the media bias for Obama and the Dems, so they can't help but speculate about a cover up.

Good question. Or, did they wander off the reservation? Did they wander off one reservation (Clinton) but not another (occupier)?

Qui bono from this flare? What if the occupiers are trying to dump the negatives on SecState? What if they don't give a damn and are resolved to cause as much damage everywhere they can until they can't?

Darrell said...The Democrats did not get to write that Steven's fondest wish was for Obama to get a second term

Stevens' politics are not the issue. He was a first rate foreign service officer. Like the military, they are supposed to be above politics. My point is that even if they wanted to (and I doubt they do) his family would not show Obama up because they would honor the nonpolitical nature of his job.

His family are San Francisco VIPs. His stepfather was, I believe the art (music?) critic for the San Francisco Chronicle for many years. The stepdad is well respected and was good at his job. He's an old man now but not an old hack and my guess is that he will play it as straight as he can.

I would not want to be in their shoes, that's for sure. The whole thing is bad enough without their having to testify for or against Obama.

Rudy Giuliani saw Clinton's "Blind Shiek" trial already and had to assume it might happen again. It makes sense to do what would need to be done if the trials ever were held here--including preserving the crime scene and the chain of custody for evidence. The Democrats own the "Inspector Jacques Clouseau" terrorists-in-civilian-courts strategy of justice, including bestowing US Constitutional rights, including Miranda warnings to foreign national "suspects." Wasn't Obama planning to move Gitmo military trials/tribunals to NY civilian courts?

Crack, you and I agree that CNN should have kept their promise. I think, however, it's a promise they should not have made. But now they have turned a promise into a lie. Sorry not to respond earlier but I was taking my grandkids to lunch.

"But Crack, isn't it unethical of them to hold back information from the public? They have a duty there too. Once they made that promise, whatever it was, they now had two conflicting duties--to the family and the public."

No, press has no ethical responsibility or duty to report a thing. They're a business. Their duty is to conduct their affairs ethically, but the affairs they choose to conduct are entirely theirs and theirs alone to do or not.

Crack is right. If CNN told the family, whoever that is?, they would not report then reported, they broke their word, than which nothing is more important, not even life itself - or a business.

If CNN made a pledge to the family to not even report on the diary, then that was incompetent. The only promise CNN should have made was to not publish any personal details that had nothing to do with the ambassador's job. Everything else, his schedule,his security details and his thoughts about the situation in Libya...all of that is fair game.

The American people have a right to know why and how our people were murdered. The press had better start doing its job and relentlessly ask the hard questions.

To add to my previous comment: The fact that this admin pushed a false story about a Youtube video, and the compliant media played along, long after it was clear to everyone else that the video was secondary, lends itself to this feeling that the public is being lied to- because in fact, they are.

"We don't know that. We know that Reines said they did. Do we trust Reines?"

No I do not trust Reines but I don't have to. He would be even a bigger fool than he seems to make such an assertion where there are two independent third parties (CNN and the family) who can easily contradict him.

The family will speak at some point, probably with one voice. I expect them to try to be diplomatic and neutral but we will see.

In any event, the focus on the family is more misdirection. The focus should be on the administration, what they did or failed to do and their honesty or lack thereof.

"It is simply not true we did nothing to protect pilots from the growing threat. That is why several men on flight 93 tried to rush the highjackers. They were there as security, that was their job."

So funny it hurts.

There were certainly legitimate questions after 9-11... Did our intelligence people have information that wasn't legitimately lost in all the other false information they get every day? Bin Laden had *formally* declared war on the US. Yes, he was determined to attack us. Where and when? What was false information?

People claimed that we knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. And some still do claim that it was allowed to happen to get US citizens on board to expand the war into the Pacific. Just like Bush supposedly, on purpose, allowed 9-11.

Who is claiming that Obama *allowed* the attack in Libya for some purpose? No one I've heard.

And certainly no one is claiming he was behind it.

That *any* of the Embassy demonstrations or the attack in Libya were spontaneous film criticism didn't pass the laugh test (though no one was laughing) on 9-11. Because it was 9-11.

That the expanding attacks since then had anything to do with spontaneous film criticism is also ridiculous and no one with a brain would accept it. One might argue that the bad guys shouldn't be given convenient *excuses*, but I don't know anyone who thinks that any of it just *happened* to coincidentally occur on 9-11.

And our government, Hillary and Obama, tried to tell us so. They told *us* so. And they spent how many 10's of thousands of dollars to buy "we're on the rioter's sides so please stop" television advertisements in Pakistan? I think I saw $40K.

So a person has to wonder if our president and secretary of state are lying to US or if they're lying to themselves.

David Graham: I do not agree that the press has no duty to report this. They have numerous privileges and some important rights that benefit them institutionally and personally. I think the press has a duty to the public to report, and they seem to say so when it suits their interest. I understand why you differ but despite all evidence I still hold that the press has a high public trust to exercise. Foolish me.

But the politics of those questioning the release of diary information is an issue--especially here. And you forgot my Paul Wellstone remark that followed. I heard lots of what he "wanted" at his memorial service--including who was to replace him. Who knew he was so focused on his own demise? I would not be surprised to see a reprise of this tactic by the Democrats.

If the US could not secure the embassies after they received the specific warnings of al Qaeda attacks planned for 9/11/2012, they should have moved everyone to a secure location in Europe until they could. Simple. No one had to die.

Crack, you and I agree that CNN should have kept their promise. I think, however, it's a promise they should not have made. But now they have turned a promise into a lie. Sorry not to respond earlier but I was taking my grandkids to lunch.

Dude, you put your "grandkids" above answering ME? I swear, some people have no sense of priorities,...LOL!

I agree it's a promise CNN shouldn't have made, but what I don't get is why, or how, they couldn't figure out a workaround - it's not like media skullduggery is rocket science - you find an alternate source and run with the story under the heading of "sources say" or "a high-ranking official tells CNN,..." or something. Why did CNN break their word when they didn't have to?

"There are some strange goings on under the surface of this mess" is an understatement,...

MayBee, I am so stealing this: Imagine if Bush had come out on 9/12/2001 and said, "This attack was completely spontaneous, and was the work of passengers who were unhappy with their terrible airline meals".

When did this thread shift from a discussion of CNN and the diary publication, into a discussion of if both Bush and Obama had advance warning of terror acts and how they reacted to said threats once they happened?

Credible evidence from our free press has reported the dead ambassador had information some bad sh*t was coming down soon. State Dept tries a squelch move, and gets family to bring in some emotion. Seems to me the next question should be how hard do we hit them (them being those cursed sons of desert camels).

Do we go tactical with drones and maybe some air power showing off?

Or full throttle navy boys blasting Tripoli from the Harbor with the big fireworks till they shape up?

Or...maybe a strongly worded statement to be introduced in the UN security council, (not a special meeting- just entered into the record at the next month session) about how disappointed we are, and maybe some regrets about that you-tube clip that started all this trouble.

Jim: Credible evidence from our free press has reported the dead ambassador had information some bad sh*t was coming down soon. State Dept tries a squelch move, and gets family to bring in some emotion.

The report is that he was worried about security. This may have been specific and may not have been. We do not know because no one is telling.

The family has expressed sorrow over the death. I am not aware that they have said anything designed to assist a squelch move. The family requested that the diary remain private. That's understandable. The emotion is being expressed by a state department official.

Lindsey Meadows said...MayBee said..."Imagine if Bush had come out on 9/12/2001 and said, "This attack was completely spontaneous, and was the work of passengers who were unhappy with their terrible airline meals".

Something's up indeed. That seems to be the central thread in the comments. What is it? My first thought was the perimeter of media protection for the occupier has been breached from the inside outward, and maybe a preference cascade is starting.

Rather like reports that press had had enough covering JFK's womanizing and would have broken out soon if the assassination had not occurred (and I am not even implying connection between assassination and press tired of covering).

Then I thought, maybe it's internal, CNN helping occupiers shove the problem on SecState, probably as prelude to expelling her.

Then I thought, nah, you're over thinking it. But yeah, something is afoot.

BTW, "the media" is still running with the cover that the events were response to a video. I don't see that nonsense "falling apart" at all. It's rock solid in place.

That would mean the occupier's media perimeter is not breached from the inside and leave open the possibility that this is an internal regime quarrel. Likely a blame game. And, since SecState's silo is getting crapped on in this case, CNN is fronting for the occupier as usual, refocusing blame on State, as is richly deserved but not solely deserved.

The Ambassador was concerned for his safety. Hillary and Barack were not.

Impressive how the scene was neither secured nor searched by the Administration in anticipation of the FBI investigation that was supposed to tell Barack what the world already knew - it wasn't the movie!

Allie Oop wrote:Everyone wants the truth of how and why ths happened, but to justify ignoring the family's wishes in order to prove the President and his administration are lying, is immoral.

Bullshit. Mostly you keep your comments within the bounds of mere boneheaded stupidity. But this transgresses decency. Allie, you wouldn't know a moral precept from a hole in the ground.

Chis Stevens was the representative of the United States. What he thought about the security situation is not private information. It is fully within the right and duty of the American people to know the truthsituation of our embassies abroad. The attempt by the Stevens family to keep the diary private is nothing short of theft, egged on and masterminded by our glorious Lord Zero to protect his sorry, incompetent lying, criminal ass.

Crack, maybe this is a workaround. To say that Stevens was worried about security is as bland a statement as can be made. Of course he was worried. But as I asked above, what were the nature of the worries and how were they expressed?

Does the CNN report mean anything? Not without more it does not. What more? Will we ever find out?

And yes it's utterly astonishing that three days later there were still scraps on the floor of an American consulate that anyone could pick up.

My grandkids are oblivious to all of this. They are six and ten year old girls. What's the rest of the country's excuse?

If the Christopher Stevens' family has anyone to be mad about, it's this administration and Hillary Clinton in particular. They will receive no truthful information from this State Department or this administration.

Remember the Golden Girls episode where Blanche and Dorothy read Rose's diary and think she wrote terrible, nasty things about them, but then it turns out it was her 4H diary from when she raised two pigs? Are we going to find out that a similar thing happened here? Like, this was the ambassador's diary from when he raised ill-tempered pigs. "I don't know how much longer I can stand living near these filthy beasts. Even though I'm secluded from actually living with them, I get the haunting feeling that they're plotting something. They way they live in their own filth, squealing five times a day (and always pointed in the same direction, which is odd), eating slop, and so on...it's horrid. But there is a friendly dog named Hillary that seems to be on my side, so that makes it better."

To politicize the death of a dead Ambassador -- what was his name? I forget -- or question the manner in which our competent State Dept. is investigating the spontaneous demonstration that led to his death is just plain unpatriotic. Reading his diary is beyond the pale.

But seriously, if I told you what I really thought . . . Oh, screw it. Here goes.

Overarching is that Obama's foreign policy (to borrow from WSJ's Bret Stephens) is nothing more than, "I am Barack Obama." See his Cairo speech. Put another way, "if we're super nice to all Muslim leaders, give them a glowing psych eval, condemn blasphemers, and send more money, the middle east will magically right itself."

That this policy is preposterous is proved in Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, et al., every day.

Obama's foreign policy is laughable. So lie, he must. Stevens's assassination had nothing to do with anti-American hatred -- it was that spliced and dubbed joke of a clip on YouTube, uploaded in July. A reprehensible, disgusting "film" said Hillary, lending it a false gravitas.

And the fact Chris Stevens was gay must go unmentioned. http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291. Sending a known gay man to a Muslim country is supremely stupid. But worse, the planned murder of Stevens is more evidence of Muslim hatred of gays. And that hatred just doesn't fit -- it obliterates -- the liberal narrative that Muslims are sensitive, peace-loving people who require only Obama's understanding and his government's condemnation of free speech in order for them to behave rationally.

So let's stop scrutinizing Obama's foreign fallacies and get back to the important issues: Mitt's donations to charity, free birth control, what cheerleaders do on wood, and the war on voting rights.

That implies that they did not report other things that they did not find newsworthy. […] If the argument is that CNN broke an agreement, I want precision and I don't see it.

Exactly. As you say, there's apt to be personal info in the journal that the family doesn't want disclosed. Naturally! But what in heaven's name could possibly be "disgusting" about disclosing Stevens's assessment in his capacity as ambassador about the security situation at a U.S. consulate and his own security there-- concerns which CNN verified independently of the journal? "Disgusting" doesn't make sense, at all. It's an absurd word to use in this context.

I suspect that as usual, what's going on here is conflation, one of this admin's most characteristic rhetorical moves. Perhaps CNN promised not to disclose "any of the contents" from the diary insofar as it's a personal document of a private person. It's fair for the family to request and CNN to promise that to the family.

But it makes no sense whatsoever for the family to demand or CNN to promise non-disclosure of something that's not personal at all, nothing personal or private in the least, but which concerns essential facts about a "major international event" and the security situation at a U.S. consulate in which Stevens served as our (America's) official. In a fundamental sense that consulate is ours and Stevens served us (American citizens), it wasn't his private residence and his role there was not as a private citizen.

So CNN independently verifies something of public significance disclosed in the diary and reports it, and the State Dept. conflates things (private and public, personal and of national significance) and, in an effort to suppress, abash and bully substantive journalistic inquiry, uses a dead man's family as a moral shield and cries "disgusting!"

Keep in mind that Stevens, was no security pro and dead, his observations matter..but are not made with an expertise on appropriate security precautions that should have been in place.

The embassy security team survived, so yes, Congress should get them to testify. Did they screw up Steven's secirity or did the Ambassador order them off, thinking he was safe going without a force protecting him?

One thing is for sure! Obama and Hillary will quash all investigation until after the election.Same deal as all the White House leaks.They ducked behind the pols favorite - "We can't comment on that or give you any information because IT WOULD BE SO WRONG OF US to INTERFERE or DISCLOSE matters now that a confidential/criminal investigation and fact-finding is underway" ("And will stay underway to cover my ass until the heat dies down or until the election is over - preferably both!!")

BTW, it is bad for the country to continue to embrace the meme that The Victims Families have unlimited moral authority and final say. Over how much money taxpayers should give them. How big the memorial built will be. What investigation must happen, and what the proper military/geopolitical, criminal investigation decisions must be to "best please Us Victim Families".We even give the ridiculous "Herohood by Victimhood" prestige to the Victims Families as newly minted Courageous Heroes Seeking Justice!! (and money, and media spotlights)

And as part of that, there is no shortage of people with their own agendas that swarm in and attempt to get what they want by wrapping themselves in the aura of championing the Victim.Usually, they cannot resist saying "Tell it to the family of the Dead Hero".

Everyone wants the truth of how and why ths happened, but to justify ignoring the family's wishes in order to prove the President and his administration are lying, is immoral.

Immoral? How so?

What about a Congressional injury, you can't wait that long?

What are a few more dead diplomats? We have an election to win, dammit!

And lest anyone accuse me of merely wanting to protect Obama, this is the third time I've said this in the past three days, IF Obama and Clinton are guilty of a coverup and inadequate security, ignoring warnings, etc. then they deserve the fallout.

But DO NOT investigate it until long after the event. Please.

"Imagine if Bush had come out on 9/12/2001 and said, "This attack was completely spontaneous, and was the work of passengers who were unhappy with their terrible airline meals".

I wouldn't have put it past him.

...ignoring that Obama did exactly that.

We know it was Obama's admin that made the claim it was a spontaneous act of outrage over the movie. They doubled down on that last week.

He lied to you.

But you're too much of an abused spouse to see the problem. C'est la vie.

Cracky, the family takes second place to the national interest. Full stop. You'd really rather we get snowed on this incident? Why don't you wait for more info on just what was promised to whom? That is more certain to come to light, naturally and without a serious journalistic effort, than is the truth of the new 9/11 attacks.

And, yes, is less important. Consult your Shakespeare (IIRC): in me it had been villainy; in thou, 'twere good service.

...

C4, nevermind the repulsiveness of your remarks, you think you've got the killer instinct but you haven't. What would really flip out the masses would be if the ambassador were getting fine Arab boys supplied to him by some corrupt Arab govt. It shows me you really don't get it. Your hatreds, or pet peeves, are really not the point here.

You know... it's one thing to imagine what someone might do in a situation that hasn't happened yet.

It's another to imagine what someone might do in a situation that happened and we know what someone already did do or didn't do.

And it's another all together to excuse what someone did in a situation that happened by comparing it to what someone didn't do in a situation that happened, because one believes in her heart that he had the nature to do what he didn't do.

The word "disgusting"-- such an absurd word to use in this context, and by the State Department!-- is a major tell.

No matter what light you look at it in, there's just nothing in the least embarrassing, personal, reflective on Stevens as a private individual in the reported info. Zilch. It's not about Stevens at all. "Disgusting"?

It couldn't be clearer that the admin wants to shut off all inquiry and force attention elsewhere. It stinks of cover-up.

Crime scene? There was what, 200 - 300 men armed with RPGs and automatic weapons, and that is considered a crime scene? Who was supposed to secure this location to investigate the so-called crime? Some of our policemen? Marines? How many Marines do you think that it would take to secure this crime scene? 100? More?

Interesting that so many defenders of the White House/State Department assume that CNN released this information with the goal of damaging the official scenario endorsed by the government. It is CNN, but even they apparently have some vestigial journalistic instincts remaining. This is a huge development in what is beginning to smell more and more like a scandal. Perhaps the motives of CNN are not entirely pure, they do get the distinction of breaking a major story. I wouldn't expect old Ted "In The Tank" Turner to squelch this one.

We really have no idea whether CNN is witholding anything newsworthy. If they are to be believed, they are withholding nothing that CNN finds to be newsworthy. They are again being the gatekeeper, deciding what the public needs to hear. Their credibility on this subject is already thin.

And what have they revealed, other than the obvious that the Ambassador to Libya was concerned about security at the consulate. Anyone with half a brain who was paying attention was concerned with this. Ambassador Stevens had a fully functioning, rational and realistic brain.

So CNN revealed the patently obvious and still State goes ballistic. Why? What else might there be that would be newsworthy to someone else? What else might they not want people to know that was not in the diary? Just how and when did the ambassador express his concerns officially and what was the response? What other compromising documents might they fear are in CNN hands? Last, bur certainly not least, why in the world was material like this still lying around three days after the attack?

CNN is being played here, and they are playing us. It's hard to know the family's role. They deserve plenty of slack, and certainly personal material relating to Ambassador Stevens should be withheld.

But the ambassador was a national representative killed in an attack on our country. He was not a bystander. Every detail regarding the attack is of public concern and interest. Painful though it may be for the family, all non personal information regarding Ambassador Stevens is of public concern and should not be withheld by a news organization.

This is a crucial test of CNN. They have a chance to get back in the game that they have been losing for years. They also have a chance to commit institutional suicide.

The State Department and the WH didn't give a rat's ass about the 'wishes of the family' when they released to a Hollywood film maker the names of the SEALS on the mission that ended UBL's life, now did they?

aritai said...So, this means a reporter got there before the U.S. Marines? I thought F.A.S.T. meant fast.

Sigh.

==================No, the Marines of the FAST group were in the Embassy and in other locales protecting US citizens within a day.The military is actually quite miffed that they were ordered by FBI prima donnas to stand down and stay clear of Benghazi and either secure what was left of the Consulate or hunt down fleeing Islamoids. That, from high on up, was said to be a matter for civilian law enforcement and the FBI, in the title of the Top Dog Heroes of Law Enforcement.Of course, THEN the FBI dragged their feet for 7 days, fearing the situation at Benghazi was not secure enough for them to visit. They apparantly got in and began their Heroes work 7 days after the Ambassador was killed and the consulate, car, and safe house "crime scenes". Which had long been picked clean by curious Libyan citizens for their own booty (hey! nice flat screen TV!) and others selling stuff to Al Qaeda and media reporters.

All while US military planes and drones watched - but did nothing because "THE FBI IS IN CHARGE, THE CRIME SCENE SHALL NOT BE TRAMMELED BY OTHERS TRYING TO STEAL OUR RICE BOWL!".

Pathetic, but don't ding the Navy and Marines who were ready to go in in hours.The FBI should have been booted out of the terrorism business long ago. They bungled the 1st WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, one of the two embassies hit, the Cole, 9/11, Major Hasan. They should only handle stuff inside the US...and even there we need a branch that does it that is not poisoned with a "civilian crime/law enforcement" mentality.

NIchevo - C4, nevermind the repulsiveness of your remarks, you think you've got the killer instinct but you haven't.

I'd like to think that my "tally" of Islamoids from one little war , which we won BTW, not only shows a certain killer instinct with a suitable award to recognize it...but exceeds whatever you have done besides well outdoing me in the capacity to self-righteously run your mouth off.

It took the FBI a week to arrive in Benghazi. They were "...delayed by concerns about continued violence in the eastern Libyan city." Maybe if they were as committed as CNN stringers they would have found the diary first. Of course, The State Department refused to make any comment on the murders while the case was under investigation, so I suppose the G-men were instructed to take their time.

What pisses me off the most is the lie the went with. It's the typical line they peddle that Americans are assholes for using their freedoms so "irresponsibly". It's tiresome and I'd much rather hear "they hate our freedoms" thank you very much.\

What pisses me off the most is the lie the went with. It's the typical line they peddle that Americans are assholes for using their freedoms so "irresponsibly". It's tiresome and I'd much rather hear "they hate our freedoms" thank you very much.\

Hit a nerve did I C4? I'd have thought you've taken harder hits than that before and not cried. Not that I could convincingly pretend to regret hurting your widdle feewings.

Questions are often asked about your background but never answered. Most of our proud military members will gladly give chapter and verse on their service. The ones who dance are usually frauds, or making mountains out of molehills.

So by all means drop the Man of Mystery act and tell us, what did you do in the war, daddy? And otherwise in your star-spangled career defending the Sacred Parchment?

But fucking with you aside, my remark was not pointless or content-free, and you muffing it makes me wonder if you are a native English speaker!

When I spoke of killer instinct...I know, and wouldn't expect you to deny, that you are mean, cruel and sadistic, and that to your friends. When it comes to your enemies, you can reach fever pitch. But the bloodlust confuses you after a point. It affects your efficiency. You hate Jews and you, I would guess, hate gays, so why not take a dump on Amb. Stevens and, simultaneously, get in a lick on your favorite whipping boys?

So you posit that Stevens' diary has confessions if homosexual acts and, moreover, that his catamite (I assume) of choice is a nice young piece of gefilte fish. What I'm saying is, that has entertainment value to Islamofascists and their propaganda effort in general and allows YOU, Cedarford, to gratify your lusts in particular.

Fine. BUT, it is suboptimal in convincing the maximum number of Muslims to die facing us.

What would serve this end best, i.e. what would enrage them most, would be allegations that the (let's accept your hypothesis arguendo) gay Ambassador was not only haram in and if himself, but worse, was preying on the flower of Arab youth. That corrupt, evil Arab leaders (i.e., the ones AQ wants to overthrow), were supplying him, and perhaps others like Hormel or who knows what all, with nice fat Arab boys or virgin girls or whatever they like.

IMHO that would do an extra special job if fanning the flames in the Muslim world. Kind of like how you would be maximally annoyed at the idea of Jews somehow feeding white women to the black bucks here in the US with media manipulation or economic pressure, as opposed to mere inner-directed miscegenation for the sake of youthful rebellion or whatever. Or, I suppose more pertinently, as opposed to hearing that blacks are sleeping with Hispanics-what would you care? Likewise, what does Johnny Jihad care if Chad shtups Moishe or vice versa? JJ sees reddest red when Chad shtups Huma or Abdul.

Do I need to spell this out more for you or do you understand now? That's what I meant by your lacking the killer instinct. Your personal prejudices, in other words, detract from your propaganda.Again, I'm happy to offend you, but did not intend to; I was making a straight point of constructive criticism, and stand by it regardless of which of us has personally (as if you were doing knifework!) killed more people.